Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5xxx series not all that impressive

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 26, 2010 4:46:53 AM

So this is totally a matter of opinion, i personally do not find the 5xxx series to not be all that impressive. I feel that it's just the a tweaked 4xxx series with some added features. While these features is nice i feel that most people aren't going to have money or desk space for 3 monitors. I guess what gets me the most, is that per core, the 5xxx series is weaker than the 4xxx series in directx 9 and 10 vs the 4xxx series. And in dx 11 which ati claimed it was optimized for ( I forget where i heard this so if i'm wrong feel free to correct me) takes a massive hit for little visual games in Dirt 2. I feel that Ati is not rebranding to say but, there isn't really the dramatic improvement. Just a die shrink, that allowed for lower power consumption, which allowed for more cores to be added, hence the performance jump, of the 5780 with double the cores of the 4xxx.

So i guess what's your opionon on the situation

More about : 5xxx series impressive

February 26, 2010 4:58:42 AM

The HD5850 is roughly equal to 2 HD4850s same goes for the HD5870 vs HD4870. I don't know what kind of performance increase you were expecting but if that isn't good enough perhaps your expectations were a bit unreasonable. If it's HOW they went about getting the performance increase that seems like you are just looking for things to complain about. As long as they perform at a certain level why would it matter how they got there?
As for DX11 I highly recommend you refrain from using one game to judge anything. There are actually other DX11 games now in case you didn't know and none of the others show a significant performance hit, 2 even have improved performance in DX11 mode.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:04:47 AM

jonnyboyC said:
So this is totally a matter of opinion, i personally do not find the 5xxx series to not be all that impressive. I feel that it's just the a tweaked 4xxx series with some added features. While these features is nice i feel that most people aren't going to have money or desk space for 3 monitors. I guess what gets me the most, is that per core, the 5xxx series is weaker than the 4xxx series in directx 9 and 10 vs the 4xxx series. And in dx 11 which ati claimed it was optimized for ( I forget where i heard this so if i'm wrong feel free to correct me) takes a massive hit for little visual games in Dirt 2. I feel that Ati is not rebranding to say but, there isn't really the dramatic improvement. Just a die shrink, that allowed for lower power consumption, which allowed for more cores to be added, hence the performance jump, of the 5780 with double the cores of the 4xxx.

So i guess what's your opionon on the situation


My opinion is that your opinion is stupid and you are just trolling. :non: 
m
0
l
Related resources
February 26, 2010 5:33:42 AM

jyjjy @
I was in all honesty unaware of these games saying that they were not worth just that toms had an article of dirt 2 and the performance hit troubled me. good to hear that there was performance improvements. I'm seriously not trying to bring ati down ( i probably am because i feel that i'm probably biased) And yes the raw performance of it's gpus was definitely a boost, for previous generations. they obviously have the performance crown. idk it just nagged me that per core performance was down, that the 5830 that was reviewed today had lower performance then it's own 4890 counter part, with an additional 330 cores.

@hallowed_dragon
didn't mean for it to start an argument i just wanted to see what other thought about it, and to if i'm wrong correct me. it's formus like these were i learn 90% of the tech info i know, and no one in my dorm even has any idea what an hd 5xxx even series gpu is, So i come here to get my facts straight
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:59:17 AM

Yeah, I don't find the HD5830 particularly impressive for its price either. The HD5770 and HD5850 seem to be the sweet spots of the series, probably the HD5670 too when it's been out for a bit longer and comes down some in price.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:01:22 AM

jonnyboyC said:
jyjjy @
I was in all honesty unaware of these games saying that they were not worth just that toms had an article of dirt 2 and the performance hit troubled me. good to hear that there was performance improvements. I'm seriously not trying to bring ati down ( i probably am because i feel that i'm probably biased) And yes the raw performance of it's gpus was definitely a boost, for previous generations. they obviously have the performance crown. idk it just nagged me that per core performance was down, that the 5830 that was reviewed today had lower performance then it's own 4890 counter part, with an additional 330 cores.

@hallowed_dragon
didn't mean for it to start an argument i just wanted to see what other thought about it, and to if i'm wrong correct me. it's formus like these were i learn 90% of the tech info i know, and no one in my dorm even has any idea what an hd 5xxx even series gpu is, So i come here to get my facts straight



i think the first statement you made was quite opinionated and frank, and maybe a little ill informed. if you dont feel you know enough about a subject, rather than making a sweeping statement ask people for an overview of the situation.

toms hardware only offers you a single point of view and there are a number of excellent website which write reviews, articles and analysis about the GPU market and the releases and the changes.

anandtech wrote an EXCELLENT piece on the RV870 journey and it gives you a real look into the choices that lead to the 5XXX series GPU and also some possible reasons why the GF100 chip has been so delayed.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3740

m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:20:27 AM

Im thinking the problem is the games more than the cards. The 5 series is just what people with multi displays and large res screens have been waiting for. The rest of us not so much. I guess you could call them a solution looking for a problem as far as some people are concerned.
My reasoning is this. Unless you have a set up like i mentioned above you just plain dont need a 5 series upgrade if you already have a 4 series card say 4770 and upwards.
The performance differance isnt enough to justify the cost and the feature set is totally non relevant at this moment in time, added to the fact that you dont actually need extra performance makes them a non starter to a section of the market.
Assuming a 4770 or 4850 you also may not have 2 Cables to power a 5830 or 5850, but again you probably play at a resolution that dosent justify that level of hardware anyway.
So untill we get some decent games that need the extra power at say 1680x1050 then the cards wont be well received by this segment of the market.
Just my opinion for what its worth.

Mactronix
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 8:31:14 AM

I wish I could remember which review it was. The 5xxx shaders are slower then the 4xxx. Period. If you compare the 5x cards that match or are closer to the 4x cards in specs you would see this to be the case.

The problem with the 5830 is different. They failed to bump up the number of ROPs, so it has nearly identical performance in games. If you could bench it with something that compares only the shaders like some sort of GUGPU program it should be faster then the 4890.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 11:33:26 AM

4745454b said:
I wish I could remember which review it was. The 5xxx shaders are slower then the 4xxx. Period. If you compare the 5x cards that match or are closer to the 4x cards in specs you would see this to be the case.

The problem with the 5830 is different. They failed to bump up the number of ROPs, so it has nearly identical performance in games. If you could bench it with something that compares only the shaders like some sort of GUGPU program it should be faster then the 4890.


im not sure its a case fo slower shaders, maybe its more to do with diminishing returns...

crossfire does not scales purfectly, neither does core on a cpu...
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 11:50:42 AM

hallowed_dragon said:
My opinion is that your opinion is stupid and you are just trolling. :non: 

Be reasonable when you talk to people like that. [:mohsentux:3]
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 12:38:20 PM

mohsentux said:
Be reasonable when you talk to people like that. [:mohsentux:3]


I expressed my opinion and I stand by it. The OP is smoking crack or something.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 1:02:47 PM

No he's not. When you compare them to the 4 series, the 5 series should be performing better.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 1:13:26 PM

4745454b said:
No he's not. When you compare them to the 4 series, the 5 series should be performing better.


4850 ---> 5850 (almost 2x performance)
4870 ---> 5870 (almost 2x performance)
....

What am I missing here?
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 1:26:33 PM

4745454b said:
No he's not. When you compare them to the 4 series, the 5 series should be performing better.


i think by the very nature of tech enthusiast we are never REALLY happy and there is always a couple of things that could be better no?
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 1:35:55 PM

dougie_boy said:
i think by the very nature of tech enthusiast we are never REALLY happy and there is always a couple of things that could be better no?


Well, I would want a GPU that generates 60 FPS perfect IQ in all games with no FPS drops whatsoever and costs 10$, but that is science fiction. I try to stay within the borders of reality.
The fact is that the 5xxx series nearly doubled the performance of the last generation and added some new features. This in term added some bonus to the price. If you don't like it don't buy it.
And another thing, I am so sick of people comparing cards that are not quite related(e.g. 4890 with 5770 or 5830), but that is another matter.

Normal comparison:

4870x2 ----> 5970
4870 ----> 5870
4850 ----> 5850
4830 ----> 5830
4770 ----> 5770
....

The price comparison goes the same way, except this time because of the nVidia incompetence and TMSC problems we have ATI pushing prices up.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 1:36:25 PM

Quote:
whos deleting my posts all the time????


The tooth fairy. If not her, then a really smart person.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 2:03:45 PM

I upgraded form a 7800GTXsli with Ageia card too an 5870 and I must say it is a mind blowing experiance. Dirt 2 is the only game where I had to by a logictec rumble pad and it is amazing. I think it all depends what you are upgrading from.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 2:06:33 PM

jonnyboyC said:
So this is totally a matter of opinion, i personally do not find the 5xxx series to not be all that impressive.


I know what you mean.

I was totally disappointed after I installed the HD 5850 into my system. I expected rocket engines to suddenly appear at the bottom of my PC and blast it into orbit.

Unfortunately, the only thing I got out of it was some stupid gaming performance increase.

How lame is that?
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 2:27:46 PM

Quote:
whos deleting my posts all the time????

Check your PM's.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 2:28:07 PM

hallowed_dragon said:
I expressed my opinion and I stand by it. The OP is smoking crack or something.

hhmmm yeah thanks :kaola: 

I can see where i might have been a bit over zealous about my 5xxx series expectations. I guess i was at least expecting the 5770 to be the same performance as the 4870 because of it's identical number of cores, and similar price, well at least like a few months ago, when there were more of those 4870 floating around. But i can see where that's really expecting alot when it's a brand new directx and some added features.

@jaguarskx
that was actually pretty funny not going lie
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 3:52:43 PM

Now that I'm home let me look it up. The problem is your comparing cards with cards, not shaders. I can't find the article I read, but I hope I can make the point with this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5870,2422...

The 5870 is nothing more then a 4870x2 right? Its the 4870 doubled. It should in fact be just slightly faster then the x2 because there is no CF scaling issues. So is this the case?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5870,2422...
Here is the 5870 losing to the 4870x2 in Stalker at all resolutions. If you enable 4x AA they perform more or less the same.

L4D no AA has the X2 faster, AA has them the same.

World in Conflict has the x2 ahead in all cases.

HawkX has something weird going on, I'd ignore that. (x2 massively ahead.)

RE5 has the x2 ahead by a lot again but not so much I think there is something going on.

GTA4 has the 5870 on top. Not surprised here as the game has multi GPU problems with scaling. Looks like they got it working somewhat as the x2 is slightly faster then the 4870 but not by much. The 5870 also wins slightly in Crysis and Farcry2 in some cases (AA on).

If the 5xxx shaders had the same power as the 4xxx shaders, the 5870 would perform better then the x2 in all cases. Obviously you can't hold one game against it, but it consistently performed lower then the x2.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 4:40:35 PM

The only cards that are under whelming from the 5xx0 is the 5450 (they go for less than retail on eBay) which cost more than my 8800gtx. The 56x0 are poor in my opinion. The 57x0 is a must for any budget upgrader who can afford one and I recommend them. The 5830 however is a disappointing let down (power consumption and only 16 rop) compared to the 5850. The 58x0 cards are the sweet spot at this time and have only a few issue which are minimal. The 5970 is well rare and has a VRM over heating issue (stock plate is crap) but can easily be solved by any after market solution like a nice full body water block.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:03:38 PM

Hallowed dragon says it well, that's just ATI/AMD's business model.
Product generation replacement:
hallowed_dragon said:

4870x2 ----> 5970
4870 ----> 5870
4850 ----> 5850
4830 ----> 5830
4770 ----> 5770


A performance comparison the last generations high end becomes the next generations middle, the last middle becomes the new low end, and the last low becomes the new junk.
Performance comparison:
nothing ----> 5970
4870x2 ----> 5870
4850x2 ----> 5850
4890 ----> 5830
4870 ----> 5770
4850 ----> 5750

All AMD/ATI did was replace the every card at every price and performance point with a new high end and getting rid of the old low end, while simultaneously trying to maintain the performance of all the cards in between. You could think of it as refreshing the middle and low ends but for ATI this saves them money as the newer cards are less costly to produce and the user benefits from new features (DX11, eyefinity, HDMI audio bit streaming ect) as well as better power efficiency compared to the 4000 series.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:26:21 PM

I was reading the comments posted along with Anands review on the 5830 and there are a lot of comments in a mini discussion along these lines. Its all the cards beneath the 5850 that are underperforming less impressive compared to last generation. That includes a lot of 5 series cards ATI has introduced the last 8 weeks. 5830,*5770, 5670,5570, 5450.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:37:21 PM

Well for one the drivers should improve the performance gap between each of the perspective 5000 and 4000 series card. (5830, 5770 and 5750) Only thing I'm disappointed with is the pricing of the 5830, it should have been a good $20 below what it is now.

Also the 5670 and below are cards targeted towards a completely different market, HTPCs not Gaming so in that way Id count them out. (The 5670 being the sweet spot, being the lowest possible gaming card and the highest possible HTPC)
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 5:45:43 PM

Nvidia is not putting much pressure in the market right now. I do see myself someday powering 3 monitors at once. Two monitors and a tv. No eyefinity, but I think even though most aren't going to use 3 monitors at once right away, its a very cool option to have in your system to take advantage of.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:28:59 PM

In DX11, all these cards will shine over their older brothers.
The older cards have had nice driver improvements already, not seen on most new cards yet, some coming in the next driver release.
The pricing of the 4xxx series was extremely low to perf, and have only gone down since then, its normal, they have to clear out the old to make room for the new, which always has higher release prices, and the 58xx cards do cost more than the 48xx cards ever did, so theyll be more expensive, period.
Wait for price drops and full availability on the 5830, as itll find its niche, and should look much better in awhile.
Ive seen where the 5870 doubles perf against the 4890 in DX11 games, and since thats where were heading, and lets face it, if you cant get fps with these cards on older games, dont blame the cards, we need to evaluate these cards on their potential looking forwards, not behind us
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:47:55 PM

I think they have established that the 5000 series cards ARE in fact slower than their 4000 series counterparts when you line them up with equal numbers of stream processing units. The difference isn't huge, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading there was a difference. However, AMD/ATI did overcome this by basically doubling the number of stream processors on their cards... that along with the improved power management and the added features make me think the 5000 series is a GIANT win for ATI... and the fact they were able to bring them to market so quickly... well, even Nvidia would have to acknowledge how successful the 5000 launch was.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:52:45 PM

4745454b said:
I wish I could remember which review it was. The 5xxx shaders are slower then the 4xxx. Period. If you compare the 5x cards that match or are closer to the 4x cards in specs you would see this to be the case.



Yes, this is what I was saying... this guy just said it way before I did! Doh!
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:52:54 PM

Top end older cards outperforming the newer tech mid range has been par for the course for a good while now. The newer cards and their drivers are geared towards running the newer games and features, i feel that this has only accelerated in the past few years with the window of worthwhile driver updates after a new gen launch getting shorter and shorter.

While its commonly accepted that ATI priced the 4 series for market share that was in itself helped by the quality of the process which enabled them to do it. Had the 4 series yields been the same as the 5 series we wouldnt have had those cards for the price we did.
Im using rough figures using 4 differant titles from a couple of review sites and am not holding this up as fact in anyway but generally from the 2600XT to date the 3850 doubled performance from the 2600XT. The 3850 to the 4850 the same and the 4850 to the 5850 just falls short of this.

So given that people got used to a big leap in performance and then the prices that the 4 series was able to sell for, i really dont find it a surprise that some people are feeling less than overwhealmed.

The 4770 didnt help as it was the first 40nm chip and was very reasonably priced i can see how people would read into it that given its a shrink and the 4 series was a great sucess that this must be how cheap the 40nm process will make our cards. Then along comes the 5 series and wham twice that much please for a card that performs the same ?? :fou:  Just dosent add up when put like that does it.

Mactronix
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 7:06:54 PM

mactronix said:
Top end older cards outperforming the newer tech mid range has been par for the course for a good while now. The newer cards and their drivers are geared towards running the newer games and features, i feel that this has only accelerated in the past few years with the window of worthwhile driver updates after a new gen launch getting shorter and shorter.

While its commonly accepted that ATI priced the 4 series for market share that was in itself helped by the quality of the process which enabled them to do it. Had the 4 series yields been the same as the 5 series we wouldnt have had those cards for the price we did.
Im using rough figures using 4 differant titles from a couple of review sites and am not holding this up as fact in anyway but generally from the 2600XT to date the 3850 doubled performance from the 2600XT. The 3850 to the 4850 the same and the 4850 to the 5850 just falls short of this.

So given that people got used to a big leap in performance and then the prices that the 4 series was able to sell for, i really dont find it a surprise that some people are feeling less than overwhealmed.

The 4770 didnt help as it was the first 40nm chip and was very reasonably priced i can see how people would read into it that given its a shrink and the 4 series was a great sucess that this must be how cheap the 40nm process will make our cards. Then along comes the 5 series and wham twice that much please for a card that performs the same ?? :fou:  Just dosent add up when put like that does it.

Mactronix

This is exactly what I was feeling, and maybe i didn't realize how much ati cut the cost of the 4xxx series to gain market share on nvidia, and are now returning to more profitable, pricing ranges
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 7:15:58 PM

When allowed to leverage its DX11 advantage, Cypress actually manages to reach the vaunted performance doubling goal that was supposedly established for it during the development cycle...at least when AA is disabled. This is encouraging in the perspective of future DX11 titles, and how they'll treat owners of DX11 hardware.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/54/4

So, the future looks good
m
0
l
Anonymous
February 26, 2010 7:29:44 PM

I paid £170 for my 4870 512mb card when it came out, and looking at the test results on all sites, the 5850 doubles its performance and the 5870 more than doubles it.

That is progress, the fact that they could make a chip one generation with 800 shaders and DOUBLE it a year later is 100% improvement.

Remember, development of cards is market driven, I am sure they could make a card 500% faster if they want, but no-one could afford to buy it. and ATI is definitely on track with creating parts that fit into the market place.

I could go on overclockers and buy a 5770 1gb today for £112, around the same amount of time in release that i bought the 4870, for £62 pounds less with added features, cooler running, less power usage by a Huge amount, DX 11, Shader 5 three monitors |(I use two at the moment and will use three now in the future)

All of this for less money by far than my current generation 4870, this is definitely progress.

This is true for the 5750 as well, a better card than 4850 all around and £88.89 right now, i paid £135.00 for my girlfriends 4850 for her machine and that was eight months ago.

Progress ther to my friend, It has impressed me for sure.

The 5870 and 5850 may be seen as just doubling the last generation, but why would you go create a new process for drawing graphics when you have shaders and they work, more is better in so many ways.

remember ATI when they went 512bit bus, it was expensive, hot ect... they have learnt from that and have got it right the last few generations (3xx-5xx)

I am a little disappointed in the 5830, it could have been a little faster to be fair, but hey, market place will determine its price once Fermi is launched and then we shall see it drop into its correct price bracket ( £190)

I am really looking forward to seeing the Fermi launch, I believe they will match the ATI offerings, and possibly have a trick or two up their sleeve.

But in the end, I cant see me buying either of the two offerings until the next release as the 4870 still does exactly what I need it to, so just cant see upgrading even though I cant help the bug sometimes.

Just my opinion, but yes, 5xxx are impressive, and so will Fermi be when it launches.

m
0
l
February 26, 2010 7:54:59 PM

@ moricon
I agree with most of what you are saying, thing is though that ATI were playing catch up untill the 4 series.
Im not talking about just Nvidia here i mean having the hardware to play the games as well.
A system that was running games on a 2600XT would have really needed the upgrade to a 3850 to play more demanding games properly. The change from a 3850 to a 4850 was well worth it and needed.

Now this is where it gets tricky because you no longer have any games that need a substantial upgrade to the next step which is a 5850. The key word here is need.
The mid to low end is where im told the companies make most of the money as its a bigger market segment, But to me it would seem that there are plenty of people out there who have a 4 series card and dont want/need any extra performance but would buy these cards if they were that bit cheaper.

Trouble is by the time that bit cheaper gets here the 6 series will be on the horison and people wont buy untill they know what they might be missing. So they hold off and then the 6 series will either be worth it or not. If not the price of the 5 series will go back up again to make it seem stupid to get a 5 and not a 6 Etc Etc.

So in effect they are loosing sales but gaining more profit per unit.

Mactronix
m
0
l
Anonymous
February 26, 2010 8:15:14 PM

IYeah Macrotronix, i see your logic there, which is why I will not upgrade this time around, but then I went GF6800 1280x1024 - 1950pro 1280x1024- 4850 16xx x 10xx - the deciding factor being the games I played at my monitors resolution.

The thing is, compared to two years ago when I got my 2 22" monitors @ 16xx10xx
the price of 19xx10xx was inhibitive, and now its not as they have fallen down to £100 for the cheapest or !150 for a nice model( less than I paid for my 22")

So yeah, i think above 16xx x 10xx there would be an upgrade for people on current 4xx series on some games if they want all the candy..

I think the path for me is 19xx X 3 and HD6xxx coming end of the year by any measures.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 8:22:46 PM

obvious troll is obvious.

or retarded.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 8:30:57 PM

@ moricon,
Sounds like a plan to me mate :) 
im planning a new build in the summer anyway depending on when the newer boards and chips get released then i will get a 5 series or just tide over with my 4 untill the 6 comes whichever seems best at the time.

Mactronix :) 
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 8:33:28 PM

mactronix said:
Im thinking the problem is the games more than the cards. The 5 series is just what people with multi displays and large res screens have been waiting for. The rest of us not so much. I guess you could call them a solution looking for a problem as far as some people are concerned.
My reasoning is this. Unless you have a set up like i mentioned above you just plain dont need a 5 series upgrade if you already have a 4 series card say 4770 and upwards.
The performance differance isnt enough to justify the cost and the feature set is totally non relevant at this moment in time, added to the fact that you dont actually need extra performance makes them a non starter to a section of the market.
Assuming a 4770 or 4850 you also may not have 2 Cables to power a 5830 or 5850, but again you probably play at a resolution that dosent justify that level of hardware anyway.
So untill we get some decent games that need the extra power at say 1680x1050 then the cards wont be well received by this segment of the market.
Just my opinion for what its worth.

Mactronix

I have always loved your thoughts
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 8:44:01 PM

New cards aimed at new tech succeeds.
New cards aimed at new tech doesn't do as well on old tech.

Is there a problem?
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 9:35:18 PM

I agree with shadow, you can't base it on benchmarks really, because the 5xxx series is aimed at new things with DX11. You also can't take cards and say because of this benchmark its better. Different cards do better at different things/types or games :p 
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 10:30:53 PM

A few thoughts to add to the mix..

The 5 series runs on a new 40nm process. The result is less power consumption for the same performance.

To me this is very obvious in the HD5770 which if you compare to the previous 4 series cards on raw performance might even be regarded as a slight disappointment, but in my view it is a real winner. Assuming your mobo can support crossfire, this card offers a legitimate upgrade path for going that route: Most people would not need to upgrade their PSU to run 2 of these cards.

Also worth noting is that people on forums like this probably don't represent the mass market. My bet is that most people don't upgrade their cards every generation, but every second generation (at most). I went from a 8800GTS 512 (g92) to a HD5770 and I'm thrilled with the new card. It uses less power; performs better; is quieter; smaller; overclocks great and I can add another one when I'm ready. Oh yeah, it cost less than what the 8800gts cost me when I bought it. So I paid less but got a better card. In my view ATI have done a great job with the 5 series and are covering the market well.

I must admit I don't think much of the 5830. I almost think they should have gone with a juniper core and tried to scale that up, maybe calling it a 5790. It seems bizzare to me that they would make a card that is physically bigger than the 5850 but offers performance closer to the 5770.

Lastly, in the name of balance, it is probably worth remembering that a lot of users still run XP and since DX11 is definately not coming to XP (in my opinion for commerical reasons rather than technical ones) one should be a bit careful about heralding the value this feature set adds to the HD5 series of cards. I'm just saying a lot of mainstream gamers will be doing it on XP for possibly years still to come so DX11 as a selling point is effectively meaningless to them, apart from the marketting value (everyone loves new features)
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 6:29:11 AM

I may have been speaking to harsh. The 5xxx cards ARE good cards. They are faster then their 4xxx brothers, just not to the degree they should be. There are many features that are great, including Eyefinity. I haven't even used it, but I would love to. The 5770 seems to be a good gaming card, and supports everything the 58xx cards can do. AMD did a great job making the 5xxx series, and an even better job bringing them out. Their rollout went great even though they had the yield issues.

While there are many XP gamers around, myself included, I believe we have reached or will soon reach the tipping point. Vista+ win7 ~ XP. If this isn't the case, I bet we will be there before this year is out.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 6:36:49 AM

4745454b said:
I may have been speaking to harsh. The 5xxx cards ARE good cards. They are faster then their 4xxx brothers, just not to the degree they should be. There are many features that are great, including Eyefinity. I haven't even used it, but I would love to. The 5770 seems to be a good gaming card, and supports everything the 58xx cards can do. AMD did a great job making the 5xxx series, and an even better job bringing them out. Their rollout went great even though they had the yield issues.

While there are many XP gamers around, myself included, I believe we have reached or will soon reach the tipping point. Vista+ win7 ~ XP. If this isn't the case, I bet we will be there before this year is out.


sorry mate, but this is bull****

a 5870 is twice as fast as a previous gen 4870. this is a massive performance gain. if you expected more, then your expectations are far too high.

what was a 9800 to a 8800?

what was a 4870 to a 3870?

the 5870 is outstanding compared to previous gen cards. and improvement on par with the 8800gt in its time.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 6:39:36 AM

I believe you quoted the wrong post. The 5870 is not twice as fast as the 4870. If it was it would equal the 4870x2, which I already pointed out it doesn't.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 6:49:46 AM

4745454b said:
I believe you quoted the wrong post. The 5870 is not twice as fast as the 4870. If it was it would equal the 4870x2, which I already pointed out it doesn't.



in all the benchmarks i have seen, the 5870 is indeed on par with a 4870x2. in fact, when overclocking is taken into accounts (and anyone buying a card of that caliber will likely be overclocking) its superior.

i don't often post a reply without reading all the others, but this troll-bait thread isn't worth the time. you can be as disappointed by the 5870's performance all you want. it doesn't change the fact that its one of the biggest performance jumps of a generation in a very long time.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 6:57:02 AM

Then post them. I posted benchmarks, the 5870 falls just a hair short. Usually not so short that you'd notice, but it has about 98% of the double the speed of the 4870. You should try reading the posts and attempt to understand them before you starting writing your own. Where did I say they were bad cards? I just said the shaders are a bit slower then the 4xxx gen, and someone else agreed to that as well.

And you talk about others trolling...
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 7:22:09 AM

With all due respect there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

The fact that Just Cause 2 is being published with DX9 support is not going to herald a mass exodus over to Windows 7

My bet is that the publisher may well have been offered up some sort of incentive to act as a guinea-pig. Afterall, we saw Halo 2 come out only for Vista and that was a bogus limitation

With regards to the graphic, you can expect a levelling off after the early adoptors switch to Windows 7 -you can't really treat that trend as a linear equation, IMHO.

IMHO the XP market is going to continue to be too big to ignore for a few more years yet.

m
0
l
February 27, 2010 7:52:09 AM

I wouldn't say ignored, overlooked perhaps. Why publish DX9 games when most everyone has moved on to DX10+? As Johns graph shows, XP is on the way out.

Not sure what you mean by statistics. I don't see any lies going on here.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 7:54:01 AM

For those that know more then I, whats the odds that the 5xxx shaders are slower because of Direct Compute? If thats an extra step that needs to be done, that could make them ever so slightly slower then the 4xxx shaders? Maybe?
m
0
l
!